evidence based diagnosis
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Evidence Based Diagnosis
Hesham Al-Inany, MD
Cairo University
![Page 2: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
When a Patient Has a ProblemWhen a Patient Has a Problem
The doctor reaches a diagnosis by:The doctor reaches a diagnosis by:
• Clinical dataClinical data
• Diagnostic toolsDiagnostic tools
![Page 3: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Increasing use of investigations:
- Availability.- The urge to make use of new technology.
![Page 4: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The evaluation of diagnostic techniques is less advanced than that of treatments. Unlike with drugs, there are generally no formal requirements
for adoption of diagnostic tests in routine care.
Diagnostic testsDiagnostic tests
![Page 5: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The evaluation of diagnostic techniques is less advanced than that
of treatments (NO phase I, II, III, IV).
New Diagnostic testsNew Diagnostic tests
![Page 6: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
This is not the only problem
• Patient oriented !!!!!!!• Your 45 year old patient has a
mammogram. The study is interpreted as "suspicious for malignancy" by your radiologist.
• Your patient asks you:"Does this mean I have cancer?", and you (correctly) answer "No, we have todo further testing."
![Page 7: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
• Your patient then asks, "OK, I understand that the mammogram isn't the final answer, but given what we know now, what are the chances that I have breast cancer?".
![Page 8: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Is it Easy!!!
• Assume that the overall risk of breast cancer in any 45 year old woman,
regardless of mammogram result, is1%. Assume also that mammography is 90% sensitive and 95% specific. Then,
select your answer below:
1% 15% 60% 85% 95%
![Page 9: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Apply results to your patients
Understand evidence
Find the best evidence to
answer questions
clinical information needs
Answerable questions
EB Diagnosis
![Page 10: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Articles about diagnosis
• Relevance
• Validity
![Page 11: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Relevance
• First, the test should be one that is feasible for you in your community
• Example: brain biopsy is an accurate test for diagnosing dementia, it’s not practical for my (living) patients!
![Page 12: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Ask yourself
• Did the patient sample include an appropriate spectrum of patients to whom the diagnostic test will be applied in clinical practice?
![Page 13: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Rule of Thumb
• at least 100 participants to ensure an appropriate "spectrum" of disease
![Page 14: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Validity
• Did the authors use a gold reference standard?
![Page 15: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• A gold standard is needed. This may be a diagnostic test,
• however if diagnosis is to lead to treatment, a treatment outcome may be the best gold standard.
![Page 16: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Sometimes
• In some cases we are limited by ethical considerations. For example, doing an invasive test such as a biopsy in a patient with a negative test result, for the sole purposes of doing a study, might be considered unethical.
![Page 17: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
So
• Is reference standard used acceptable?
• Were both reference standard and test applied to all patients?
![Page 18: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Blinding
• Was there a blind comparison with the reference standard ?
• Frequently very difficult to achieve
![Page 19: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Independent
• the decision to perform the reference standard should ideally be independent of the results of the test being studied.
![Page 20: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Ask Yourself
• Did the results of the test being evaluated influence the decision to perform the reference standard?
![Page 21: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Methodology
• Were the methods for performing the test described in sufficient detail to permit replication?
![Page 22: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Statistics needed to know
• prevalence = probability of disease in the entire population at any point in time (i.e. 8% the Egyptian population has diabetes mellitus)
• incidence = probability that a patient without disease develops the disease during an interval (the incidence of diabetes mellitus is 0.6% per year, referring only to new cases)
![Page 23: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
sensitivity
• probability of a positive test among patients with disease
• i.e Ability to diagnose
![Page 24: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
specificity
• probability of a negative test among patients without disease
• i.e Ability to exclude
![Page 26: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
2 X 2 Table
a(true positive)
b(false positive)
c(false negative)
d(true negative)
![Page 27: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
• Positive predictive value = probability of disease among patients with a positive test
• Negative predictive value = probability of no disease among patients with a negative test
![Page 29: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
MeasureDefinitionFormula
SensitivityTrue positivesAll diseased
a a+c
SpecificityTrue negativesAll nondiseased
d b+d
Positive Predictive value
True positives All screened positive
a a+b
Negative Predictive value
True negativesAll screened negative
d c+d
![Page 30: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Keep in Mind
• sensitivity and specificity by themselves are only useful when either is very high (over typically, 95% or higher).
![Page 31: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Likelihood Ratios
• LR means probability of an individual with the condition having the test result
probability of an individual without the condition having the test result
LR+ = probability of an individual with the condition having a positive test probability of an individual without the condition having a positive test
![Page 32: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
• LR- =
probability of an individual with the condition having a negative test
probability of an individual without the condition having a negative test
• LR+ = sensitivity / (1-specificity)
• LR- = (1-sensitivity) / specificity
![Page 33: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Why LR
• The LR+ corresponds to the clinical concept of "ruling-in disease"
• The LR- corresponds to the clinical concept of "ruling-out disease“
![Page 34: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Interpreting likelihood ratios
LR Interpretation
>10 Large and often conclusive increase in the likelihood of disease
5 - 10 Moderate increase in the likelihood of disease
2 - 5 Small increase in the likelihood of disease
1 - 2 Minimal increase in the likelihood of disease
1 No change in the likelihood of disease
0.5 - 1.0 Minimal decrease in the likelihood of disease
0.2 - 0.5 Small decrease in the likelihood of disease
0.1 - 0.2 Moderate decrease in the likelihood of disease
<0.1 Large and often conclusive decrease in the likelihood of disease
![Page 35: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
ROC curve is simply a graph of sensitivity vs (1-specificity)
![Page 37: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Finally
• Will the results Help Me in Caring for My Patients?
![Page 38: Evidence Based Diagnosis](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022013118/554b19a0b4c9056f098b4f74/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
THANK YOU